Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4163 of 2018 Revisionist :- Dr. Arvind Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Jhansi, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2018 State vs. Sumesh Mishr and others, whereby the application of informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C Arvind Kumar Dubey to summon the Pravesh Mishra @ Kuldeep Mishra (Jeth), Suldeep Mishra (Jeth) and Smt Poonam W/o Suldeep Mishra (Jethani) of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 120-B and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that PW-1 (Arvind Kumar) and PW-2 (Manish Dubey) have supported the involvement of above mentioned accused persons in the crime, even though the learned Trial Court has refused to take cognizance against them.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there no any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
From the perusal of record, it reveals that general allegation for demand of dowry has been made against opposite parties Pravesh Mishra @ Kuldeep Mishra, Suldeep Mishra and Smt. Poonam.
No specific role for demand of dowry or their involvement in the crime has been assigned to them. Being Jeth and Jethani of the deceased, they were not beneficiary of the dowry.
Accordingly I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
In result the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 C. MANI